In 1965, my wife and I got married three times in one month. First we got a marriage license in Manhattan Borough Hall, and had our blood tested (I guess this was for syphilis). With the negative test results we went to Borough Hall again, for our first wedding, a civil ceremony on our lunch hour, with my secretary attending as witness. We then went on our honeymoon to Frankfurt, our first stop. My father-in-law came from Cologne and by previous arrangement, we went to a bilingual lawyer who set up an affidavit certifying that we were married under New York law. We then went on to Tokyo via Copenhagen and Anchorage, and then on to Hongkong, Bangkok, and via Karachi and Teheran, to Paris and slept it off. We then celebrated into the wee hours, not realizing that Paris subways stop at 2 a.m. We walked to our hotel and slept it off and missed our next flight. Finally we arrived in Cologne and went to the town clerk who performed a civil union based on the Frankfurt attorney's affidavit already delivered to him by my father-in-law. At last, we went for our [third and last] church wedding which the German clergy had no authority to perform without a civil union certificate. It did not make a lot of sense to me at that time, but it does now.
With all due respect, marriage is a civil contract concerning assets and children. Divorce is a termination of contract with division of assets and liabilities and children. A church wedding alone makes no more sense than a church divorce. The Catholic Church does not recognize the civil right to terminate a marriage, much less a civil union contract. And priests would be particularly unsuitable for allocating assets, liabilities, and children.
My point in reviewing all this ancient personal history is that if elected, I plan to introduce legislation to require a civil union before any religious wedding and not to recognize a church-only marriage as legally binding. A couple, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, would not qualify to file joint tax returns without the benefit of a civil union certificate. Children would not qualify to carry the biological father's surname absent a civil union certificate. Health insurance would be available to CU partners but not mere spouses. And I am annoyed every April when the Vermont Act 60 tax rebate forms requires the signature of "Spouse or CU Partner." Why must we accept such discriminatory distinctions? In the future, only CU partners should qualify. Just spouses who have no official CU partner standing, should not qualify for the rebate.
To help the Vermont economy, I propose a CUT industry. CUT is short for Civil Union Tourism. Just as Las Vegas is the quickie divorce and instant marriage capital, Vermont should become the CUT capital, which would benefit hotels, restaurants, and official who perform civil unions. And under my proposed legislation, living in sin would no longer be a sin. But living without a civil union, would be a loss of some valuable civil rights. Best of all, it would weaken the power of some high profile clerics who presume to speak for the Almighty and wield inordinate and unwholesome power over the faithful. In Vermont, civil union is no longer a political issue, but it is in too many other places. It is time we export Vermont's advanced standing.